3 ms·

It’s not google thats getting worse, it’s the overall internet. I expect open source will follow suit in either removing projects or sealing them off. Similar

It’s not google thats getting worse, it’s the overall internet. I expect open source will follow suit in either removing projects or sealing them off. Similarly, companies will limit access to ensure monetisation. No one wants their work stolen to train ais and then monetised for not even a mention in exchange. The dead internet is even more likely to happen.

seebye 3y ago
> I expect open source will follow suit in either removing projects This will just lead to forks (if your project was popular).
- gumballindie 3y ago
  Well i am not talking about impulsive “make repo private” type of action but rather the team that maintains large open source projects to take coordinated action in moving, removing or updating the license of their projects. Forking code is not an issue - i can fork half of github and it wont mean much without maintenance.
  - bshipp 3y ago
    > i can fork half of github and it wont mean much without maintenance Well....yeah? open source doesn't mean you don't have to do anything to make it work. Many times I've forked a project, cleaned up maintenance issues so it ran on my instance, and then did a pull request so the original author could incorporate the update. While we are blessed with many turn-key projects that require little more installation effort than following detailed instructions, FOSS is supposed to be a community effort, not something falling on the shoulders of a tiny maintenance team.
Cpoll 3y ago
> No one wants their work stolen to train ais and then monetised for not even a mention in exchange. I feel (or perhaps hope) the spirit of FOSS precludes the notion of "stealing." Besides, open source is no stranger to being monetized for the bare minimum mention required by whatever license.
- dolni 3y ago
  What are you on about? A significant portion of open source software is GPL licensed. Taking GPL'd code and redistributing it without making the source available IS stealing. It is community code. If you want to use it, you have to give back. Otherwise pick something with a BSD or MIT license.
  - Cpoll 3y ago
    That's putting the cart before the horse. FSF's goal with GPL was to make all software free. Removing or sealing off projects is antithetical to that. That's what I'm getting at. I should have been more clear, my point wasn't really on the semantics (and inexactitude) of "stealing." I can agree with your usage in this context.
  - j1elo 3y ago
    > Taking GPL'd code and redistributing it without making the source available IS ... copyright infringement. Against which you might want to lawyer up and sue in court, if you feel litigious (and have have deep pockets to pay for the expenses, or someone else does it for you). But is nowhere as clear cut as stealing, like you mentioned.
    - dolni 3y ago
      It is stealing in the same way that pirating software is stealing. No more or less than that.
- rurp 3y ago
  Unfortunately LLMs directly undercut the work of the people and companies who produced the training material. Releasing a bunch of art, writing, or code into the world for others to use is starting to lead to AI models that threaten to take work away from the original producers.
JohnFen 3y ago
> It’s not google thats getting worse, it’s the overall internet It's also that google is getting worse. It has been slowly declining in quality for a very long time.

seebye 3y ago

> I expect open source will follow suit in either removing projects This will just lead to forks (if your project was popular).

gumballindie 3y ago
Well i am not talking about impulsive “make repo private” type of action but rather the team that maintains large open source projects to take coordinated action in moving, removing or updating the license of their projects. Forking code is not an issue - i can fork half of github and it wont mean much without maintenance.
- bshipp 3y ago
  > i can fork half of github and it wont mean much without maintenance Well....yeah? open source doesn't mean you don't have to do anything to make it work. Many times I've forked a project, cleaned up maintenance issues so it ran on my instance, and then did a pull request so the original author could incorporate the update. While we are blessed with many turn-key projects that require little more installation effort than following detailed instructions, FOSS is supposed to be a community effort, not something falling on the shoulders of a tiny maintenance team.

Cpoll 3y ago

> No one wants their work stolen to train ais and then monetised for not even a mention in exchange. I feel (or perhaps hope) the spirit of FOSS precludes the notion of "stealing." Besides, open source is no stranger to being monetized for the bare minimum mention required by whatever license.

dolni 3y ago
What are you on about? A significant portion of open source software is GPL licensed. Taking GPL'd code and redistributing it without making the source available IS stealing. It is community code. If you want to use it, you have to give back. Otherwise pick something with a BSD or MIT license.
- Cpoll 3y ago
  That's putting the cart before the horse. FSF's goal with GPL was to make all software free. Removing or sealing off projects is antithetical to that. That's what I'm getting at. I should have been more clear, my point wasn't really on the semantics (and inexactitude) of "stealing." I can agree with your usage in this context.
- j1elo 3y ago
  > Taking GPL'd code and redistributing it without making the source available IS ... copyright infringement. Against which you might want to lawyer up and sue in court, if you feel litigious (and have have deep pockets to pay for the expenses, or someone else does it for you). But is nowhere as clear cut as stealing, like you mentioned.
  - dolni 3y ago
    It is stealing in the same way that pirating software is stealing. No more or less than that.
rurp 3y ago
Unfortunately LLMs directly undercut the work of the people and companies who produced the training material. Releasing a bunch of art, writing, or code into the world for others to use is starting to lead to AI models that threaten to take work away from the original producers.

JohnFen 3y ago

> It’s not google thats getting worse, it’s the overall internet It's also that google is getting worse. It has been slowly declining in quality for a very long time.